He didn't answer your question because he couldn't. He has no quote from any Flight 93 family member because if he did, those family members could be tried for Treason.
___________
But why can't he talk about flight 77? No mention of treason from you re. that flight.
I'm done with you. I admit....I am a coward. You are 100% right and with the facts and evidence behind you, you will take down the government. I have no doubt about that.
You and coldsnap have my number. I honestly don't know what I'm going to do.
0
He didn't answer your question because he couldn't. He has no quote from any Flight 93 family member because if he did, those family members could be tried for Treason.
___________
But why can't he talk about flight 77? No mention of treason from you re. that flight.
I'm done with you. I admit....I am a coward. You are 100% right and with the facts and evidence behind you, you will take down the government. I have no doubt about that.
You and coldsnap have my number. I honestly don't know what I'm going to do.
Also, addressing your "he was covered in jet fuel and had bodies in his hands" claim:
Please find me the name of the person you are talking about in this list. If he is not in the list, then he was not a witness to anything Pentagon related on 9/11/2001.
Thanks Hutch. I'll be awaiting your reply
0
Also, addressing your "he was covered in jet fuel and had bodies in his hands" claim:
Please find me the name of the person you are talking about in this list. If he is not in the list, then he was not a witness to anything Pentagon related on 9/11/2001.
He didn't answer your question because he couldn't. He has no quote from any Flight 93 family member because if he did, those family members could be tried for Treason.
___________
But why can't he talk about flight 77? No mention of treason from you re. that flight.
I'm done with you. I admit....I am a coward. You are 100% right and with the facts and evidence behind you, you will take down the government. I have no doubt about that.
You and coldsnap have my number. I honestly don't know what I'm going to do.
I cannot answer why someone that I've never spoken with or aligned myself with in any way is unwilling to discuss Flight 77 or anything else.
And thank you for the rest of the post. It only confirms everything that I've/we've already known. You have never had a valid argument in this thread and it's about time someone put you in your place. You avoid any and all debates that call you out directly, and not only in this thread. You only are "giving up" because you've failed and lost this debate, and for no other reason.
I will however be glad to engage in debate with you once you decide to answer the questions I've posted to you, directly, on page 56.
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
He didn't answer your question because he couldn't. He has no quote from any Flight 93 family member because if he did, those family members could be tried for Treason.
___________
But why can't he talk about flight 77? No mention of treason from you re. that flight.
I'm done with you. I admit....I am a coward. You are 100% right and with the facts and evidence behind you, you will take down the government. I have no doubt about that.
You and coldsnap have my number. I honestly don't know what I'm going to do.
I cannot answer why someone that I've never spoken with or aligned myself with in any way is unwilling to discuss Flight 77 or anything else.
And thank you for the rest of the post. It only confirms everything that I've/we've already known. You have never had a valid argument in this thread and it's about time someone put you in your place. You avoid any and all debates that call you out directly, and not only in this thread. You only are "giving up" because you've failed and lost this debate, and for no other reason.
I will however be glad to engage in debate with you once you decide to answer the questions I've posted to you, directly, on page 56.
I've lost my father in the terrible events that occurred on this day. It's a day that I'll never forget, and I think about ever single day since it's occurred. But I want answers. I've yet to get answers from our government, although I've written thousands of emails, and called hundreds of phone numbers. I want answers to the above contradictions, and I don't want to be pushed aside.
Smdio the above is cut and pasted from youre 1st post in this thread -------now you have a video and a website ? why didn,t you mention that on page 1 ? typing with 1 hand while holding a document in you're other -----------little lie = big lie
0
I've lost my father in the terrible events that occurred on this day. It's a day that I'll never forget, and I think about ever single day since it's occurred. But I want answers. I've yet to get answers from our government, although I've written thousands of emails, and called hundreds of phone numbers. I want answers to the above contradictions, and I don't want to be pushed aside.
Smdio the above is cut and pasted from youre 1st post in this thread -------now you have a video and a website ? why didn,t you mention that on page 1 ? typing with 1 hand while holding a document in you're other -----------little lie = big lie
Hutch and kampo answered your questions and then you keep asking the same question that they already answered. You are not a stalker? WOW!!!!!! I know where you live I know your name where you work what you eat what color your shirt is but it just came up at a dinner conversation. That weirded me out and that is hard to do since I am a stalker. Kampo as well as I know if you were bringing a case against anybody the first thing your attorney would tell you is dont talk or write about this with anyone. Which you seem to be doing. Nobody believes you you just keep adding stuff to make your lie seem better but swahili already called you out on that about 100 post ago. Stay down retard. You are drowning in your lies pm scubiwhack and you guys can be smarter than everybody else together. You are not a stalker and he does not spend to much time on this!!!!!!!!
0
Hutch and kampo answered your questions and then you keep asking the same question that they already answered. You are not a stalker? WOW!!!!!! I know where you live I know your name where you work what you eat what color your shirt is but it just came up at a dinner conversation. That weirded me out and that is hard to do since I am a stalker. Kampo as well as I know if you were bringing a case against anybody the first thing your attorney would tell you is dont talk or write about this with anyone. Which you seem to be doing. Nobody believes you you just keep adding stuff to make your lie seem better but swahili already called you out on that about 100 post ago. Stay down retard. You are drowning in your lies pm scubiwhack and you guys can be smarter than everybody else together. You are not a stalker and he does not spend to much time on this!!!!!!!!
Yes, they all testified before the Library of Congress just a few short weeks after 9/11/2001. This would be under oath, since anytime you speak to a Congressional Committee, you get sworn in
Is that the best you can do?
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
Yes, they all testified before the Library of Congress just a few short weeks after 9/11/2001. This would be under oath, since anytime you speak to a Congressional Committee, you get sworn in
Hutch and kampo answered your questions and then you keep asking the same question that they already answered. You are not a stalker? WOW!!!!!! I know where you live I know your name where you work what you eat what color your shirt is but it just came up at a dinner conversation. That weirded me out and that is hard to do since I am a stalker. Kampo as well as I know if you were bringing a case against anybody the first thing your attorney would tell you is dont talk or write about this with anyone. Which you seem to be doing. Nobody believes you you just keep adding stuff to make your lie seem better but swahili already called you out on that about 100 post ago. Stay down retard. You are drowning in your lies pm scubiwhack and you guys can be smarter than everybody else together. You are not a stalker and he does not spend to much time on this!!!!!!!!
So you have a problem with me...? Or am I mistaken?
Anyway to follow up my previous GENERAL post ... I did manage to watch this today. I had posted it earlier today. It's worth watching at least once along with their other video which I posted a link for earlier also.
Hutch and kampo answered your questions and then you keep asking the same question that they already answered. You are not a stalker? WOW!!!!!! I know where you live I know your name where you work what you eat what color your shirt is but it just came up at a dinner conversation. That weirded me out and that is hard to do since I am a stalker. Kampo as well as I know if you were bringing a case against anybody the first thing your attorney would tell you is dont talk or write about this with anyone. Which you seem to be doing. Nobody believes you you just keep adding stuff to make your lie seem better but swahili already called you out on that about 100 post ago. Stay down retard. You are drowning in your lies pm scubiwhack and you guys can be smarter than everybody else together. You are not a stalker and he does not spend to much time on this!!!!!!!!
So you have a problem with me...? Or am I mistaken?
Anyway to follow up my previous GENERAL post ... I did manage to watch this today. I had posted it earlier today. It's worth watching at least once along with their other video which I posted a link for earlier also.
I've lost my father in the terrible events that occurred on this day. It's a day that I'll never forget, and I think about ever single day since it's occurred. But I want answers. I've yet to get answers from our government, although I've written thousands of emails, and called hundreds of phone numbers. I want answers to the above contradictions, and I don't want to be pushed aside.
Smdio the above is cut and pasted from youre 1st post in this thread -------now you have a video and a website ? why didn,t you mention that on page 1 ? typing with 1 hand while holding a document in you're other -----------little lie = big lie
It's not "my" website, but it's the group that I belong to.
And what does CIT have to do with my fathers death? You've completely lost me with this post..
0
Quote Originally Posted by swahili:
I've lost my father in the terrible events that occurred on this day. It's a day that I'll never forget, and I think about ever single day since it's occurred. But I want answers. I've yet to get answers from our government, although I've written thousands of emails, and called hundreds of phone numbers. I want answers to the above contradictions, and I don't want to be pushed aside.
Smdio the above is cut and pasted from youre 1st post in this thread -------now you have a video and a website ? why didn,t you mention that on page 1 ? typing with 1 hand while holding a document in you're other -----------little lie = big lie
It's not "my" website, but it's the group that I belong to.
And what does CIT have to do with my fathers death? You've completely lost me with this post..
Yes, they all testified before the Library of Congress just a few short weeks after 9/11/2001. This would be under oath, since anytime you speak to a Congressional Committee, you get sworn in
Is that the best you can do?
0
QUOTE Originally Posted by smdio:
Yes, they all testified before the Library of Congress just a few short weeks after 9/11/2001. This would be under oath, since anytime you speak to a Congressional Committee, you get sworn in
I guess we can't paste images here? That sucks. Damn, was going to make a very intelligent post describing some Pentagon stuff. Guess I'll have to figure out something else..
0
I guess we can't paste images here? That sucks. Damn, was going to make a very intelligent post describing some Pentagon stuff. Guess I'll have to figure out something else..
I intended on pasting images to this post to make the read much easier to follow, but apparently covers doesn't allow image pastes on their forum. Instead of posting the images, I'll supply the image URL links for you to view as you read the following post. Whenever you see a link, I suggest stopping reading at that point, viewing the image, and then returning to the spot where you left off reading. Obviously, I don't have to tell you how to read, but the way I just described will make it easier to follow what I'm about to say, as I believe you will think it's quite shocking.
As I explained earlier in this thread, I do not believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. This theory is based on years and years of research, independent interviews with witnesses that were there on 9/11/2001, photographic evidence, and this video. What hit the Pentagon and caused the damage? I'm still not 100% sure. There's a missile theory. There's a drone aircraft theory. There's an explosives theory. There is certainly enough evidence to support any of the previously mentioned theories, but 1 thing I know with 100% certainty: Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.
The downed light poles at the Pentagon are arguably the most convincing evidence that a 757 caused the physical damage that day. But now that we know the plane was on the north side of the CITGO station it is clear that they got there somehow else. This is compounded by the fact that it is physically impossible for Lloyd England's story to be true.
This may seem like a complex task but it would actually be quite simple for the suspect in question to accomplish.
First realize that the area is the literal backyard of the suspect and one of the most highly secured areas in the nation.
It's right by the heliport where the President travels from quite often and in fact he had left from there the day before and was scheduled to return there that afternoon.
Heliport firefighter Allan Wallace:
"Our first helicopter flight was around 10AM. But we were expecting President George W. Bush to land in Marine One around 12 Noon, returning from Jacksonville, Florida. (He had actually left from the Pentagon the day before.) Needless to say, neither flight arrived at the Pentagon that day because of the terrorist attacks. " source
This means that they had all the excuse they needed to "secure" the area in preparation for his arrival and this would even be quite routine and expected for the people in the area since the President travels from there regularly. The poles could have been removed in the middle of the night on any night prior to the event in what could have been made to look like regular late night road work. Then the pre-fabricated damaged poles could be put in place perhaps at 4:00am on 9/11 or even later in the day while they were "securing" the area for the President's scheduled arrival.
4 of the 5 poles were hidden off to the side on the grass, as you can see from this image.
(continued in next post)
0
I intended on pasting images to this post to make the read much easier to follow, but apparently covers doesn't allow image pastes on their forum. Instead of posting the images, I'll supply the image URL links for you to view as you read the following post. Whenever you see a link, I suggest stopping reading at that point, viewing the image, and then returning to the spot where you left off reading. Obviously, I don't have to tell you how to read, but the way I just described will make it easier to follow what I'm about to say, as I believe you will think it's quite shocking.
As I explained earlier in this thread, I do not believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. This theory is based on years and years of research, independent interviews with witnesses that were there on 9/11/2001, photographic evidence, and this video. What hit the Pentagon and caused the damage? I'm still not 100% sure. There's a missile theory. There's a drone aircraft theory. There's an explosives theory. There is certainly enough evidence to support any of the previously mentioned theories, but 1 thing I know with 100% certainty: Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.
The downed light poles at the Pentagon are arguably the most convincing evidence that a 757 caused the physical damage that day. But now that we know the plane was on the north side of the CITGO station it is clear that they got there somehow else. This is compounded by the fact that it is physically impossible for Lloyd England's story to be true.
This may seem like a complex task but it would actually be quite simple for the suspect in question to accomplish.
First realize that the area is the literal backyard of the suspect and one of the most highly secured areas in the nation.
It's right by the heliport where the President travels from quite often and in fact he had left from there the day before and was scheduled to return there that afternoon.
Heliport firefighter Allan Wallace:
"Our first helicopter flight was around 10AM. But we were expecting President George W. Bush to land in Marine One around 12 Noon, returning from Jacksonville, Florida. (He had actually left from the Pentagon the day before.) Needless to say, neither flight arrived at the Pentagon that day because of the terrorist attacks. " source
This means that they had all the excuse they needed to "secure" the area in preparation for his arrival and this would even be quite routine and expected for the people in the area since the President travels from there regularly. The poles could have been removed in the middle of the night on any night prior to the event in what could have been made to look like regular late night road work. Then the pre-fabricated damaged poles could be put in place perhaps at 4:00am on 9/11 or even later in the day while they were "securing" the area for the President's scheduled arrival.
4 of the 5 poles were hidden off to the side on the grass, as you can see from this image.
4 of the 5 poles were hidden off to the side on the grass, as you can see from this image.
I'll address pole 1 in a bit.
There isn't a reason that any of them would cause a reason for alarm or notice by any of the morning rush hour traffic even if they could be seen.Pole 2 was completely hidden and poles 4 and 5 were down on slopes.They were all on Pentagon property/jurisdiction/control which could have been on serious lock down due to the President's scheduled arrival.
Now let's look at this image.
The bottom line is that EVEN IF someone did happen to see a pole on the ground and remember and EVEN IF they put 2 and 2 together after the fact and called the FBI obviously nothing would have happened.
But they most likely would NOT put 2 and 2 together because the light poles were an insignificant tiny blip on the most historically tragic day in U.S. history.
The average public has absolutely no clue about the light poles at all and even many in the "truth movement" aren't aware of them. The poles have not been covered in a single official report either. This seemingly impossible scenario to stage would have been child's play to do in their own backyard for the same perpetrators who pulled off a covert triple controlled demolition in downtown Manhattan.
Light pole one was likely staged after the fact and a detailed photographic look into this scene is available here.
But as a summary, the possibly pre-damaged cab could have been towed or driven to it's spot where they partially blocked traffic and placed it. Minutes later feds rolled up and surrounded the area and completely blocked traffic.
These images (image 1, image 2, image 3, image 4, image 5) show you how much control they had of the scene after blocking traffic and surrounding the area as well as how the cars on the other side of the highway going northbound wouldn't see anything because of the HOV lane that was already closed and had two sets of guardrails.
They could have done anything they wanted and it wouldn't matter because the Pentagon was burning and nobody would care or notice the feds and the cab and the pole even if they could see them. But they couldn't.
Pole 1 could have been pulled from the shoulder, maybe from behind the bush, over the guardrail from the other side, or even unloaded from a truck all in about 30 seconds. We do know it was moved before all these images were taken due to the scratch on the road: image of scratch
(continued in next post)
0
(continued from post #1443)
4 of the 5 poles were hidden off to the side on the grass, as you can see from this image.
I'll address pole 1 in a bit.
There isn't a reason that any of them would cause a reason for alarm or notice by any of the morning rush hour traffic even if they could be seen.Pole 2 was completely hidden and poles 4 and 5 were down on slopes.They were all on Pentagon property/jurisdiction/control which could have been on serious lock down due to the President's scheduled arrival.
Now let's look at this image.
The bottom line is that EVEN IF someone did happen to see a pole on the ground and remember and EVEN IF they put 2 and 2 together after the fact and called the FBI obviously nothing would have happened.
But they most likely would NOT put 2 and 2 together because the light poles were an insignificant tiny blip on the most historically tragic day in U.S. history.
The average public has absolutely no clue about the light poles at all and even many in the "truth movement" aren't aware of them. The poles have not been covered in a single official report either. This seemingly impossible scenario to stage would have been child's play to do in their own backyard for the same perpetrators who pulled off a covert triple controlled demolition in downtown Manhattan.
Light pole one was likely staged after the fact and a detailed photographic look into this scene is available here.
But as a summary, the possibly pre-damaged cab could have been towed or driven to it's spot where they partially blocked traffic and placed it. Minutes later feds rolled up and surrounded the area and completely blocked traffic.
These images (image 1, image 2, image 3, image 4, image 5) show you how much control they had of the scene after blocking traffic and surrounding the area as well as how the cars on the other side of the highway going northbound wouldn't see anything because of the HOV lane that was already closed and had two sets of guardrails.
They could have done anything they wanted and it wouldn't matter because the Pentagon was burning and nobody would care or notice the feds and the cab and the pole even if they could see them. But they couldn't.
Pole 1 could have been pulled from the shoulder, maybe from behind the bush, over the guardrail from the other side, or even unloaded from a truck all in about 30 seconds. We do know it was moved before all these images were taken due to the scratch on the road: image of scratch
This individual with the red tie (image 1, image 2) who was likely driving the Jeep Cherokee was a central figure in this scene whose access and seeming authority imply he is likely a federal agent.
The notion that the poles were blown with explosives or knocked down by the vortex of a second plane or a missile is simply not possible primarily due to the physical damage of the poles revealing that they were somehow pinched at the top: image 1, image 2, image 3
This could not have happened from explosives or the vortex of anything. But it could have been easily pre-fabricated in advance, with a device such as this.
Compare the damage to this same style "break-away" base of a pole from the same area that was blown over by wind to pole #4's base: view comparison images here
The 9/11 base is perfectly symmetrical and sooty as if it were removed with a torch while the wind blown base is more random like you would expect if it were broken by a sudden force like wind or a 90 ton jet.
Some of you have said in this thread "Well if Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, what about the light poles?". I think the above post has cleared this up.
I am open to questions and debate about the lights poles
0
(continued from post #1444)
This individual with the red tie (image 1, image 2) who was likely driving the Jeep Cherokee was a central figure in this scene whose access and seeming authority imply he is likely a federal agent.
The notion that the poles were blown with explosives or knocked down by the vortex of a second plane or a missile is simply not possible primarily due to the physical damage of the poles revealing that they were somehow pinched at the top: image 1, image 2, image 3
This could not have happened from explosives or the vortex of anything. But it could have been easily pre-fabricated in advance, with a device such as this.
Compare the damage to this same style "break-away" base of a pole from the same area that was blown over by wind to pole #4's base: view comparison images here
The 9/11 base is perfectly symmetrical and sooty as if it were removed with a torch while the wind blown base is more random like you would expect if it were broken by a sudden force like wind or a 90 ton jet.
Some of you have said in this thread "Well if Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, what about the light poles?". I think the above post has cleared this up.
I am open to questions and debate about the lights poles
For more on Lloyd England and our interviews with him, please watch this (much shorter) video here.
It briefly mentions the Northern approach of Flight 77 in the beginning, but you can get an in-depth examination along with eye-witness interviews from this (much longer) video, which I've been posting for 5 or 6 pages now.
0
For more on Lloyd England and our interviews with him, please watch this (much shorter) video here.
It briefly mentions the Northern approach of Flight 77 in the beginning, but you can get an in-depth examination along with eye-witness interviews from this (much longer) video, which I've been posting for 5 or 6 pages now.
I know you're probably still licking your wounds from the beating you've taken in this thread. But if you really want to email someone for answers, his name is Craig Ranke. Before you do, make sure you listen to this debate in which Craig makes a fool out of some tool, such as yourself.
I also have his phone number and email address, in case you want to go one step further.
0
Hey HutchEmAll
I know you're probably still licking your wounds from the beating you've taken in this thread. But if you really want to email someone for answers, his name is Craig Ranke. Before you do, make sure you listen to this debate in which Craig makes a fool out of some tool, such as yourself.
I also have his phone number and email address, in case you want to go one step further.
Looks like I don't have to debunk the "Citizens Investigation Team" video "NSA" because someone else has already done it for me: "I started to doubt the validity of NSA when I found out that CIT had
misled me into thinking that the witnesses were unanimous in confirming
the north flight path. That is not true. There are numerous south flight
path witnesses including four that CIT had interviewed. CIT claims that
these witness statements are "dubious" and this justifies not
mentioning them in the video. CIT not looking for south flight path
witnesses and excluding the ones they did find is like NIST not looking
for evidence of explosives and excluding the FEMA C report. You can't
find something if you don't look for it. A real investigative report
would give all the evidence and let the viewer decide.
Like NIST starting with the conclusion that the plane impacts and
fires brought down the Trade Towers, CIT started with the conclusion of
flyover. They included the statements that supported that conclusion and
left out any statements to the contrary. Most notably the clear,
unambiguous and unanimous statements by the five witnesses CIT
interviewed who could see the Pentagon. They all said the plane hit the
Pentagon. Four said they saw the plane fly into the building and the
fifth said he "could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon" but it
"was a direct line to go into the Pentagon [and it] collided". CIT asked
him if the plane flew over the Pentagon and he said "NO". Once again
the viewer is given only the information that supports the flyover
theory.
0
Looks like I don't have to debunk the "Citizens Investigation Team" video "NSA" because someone else has already done it for me: "I started to doubt the validity of NSA when I found out that CIT had
misled me into thinking that the witnesses were unanimous in confirming
the north flight path. That is not true. There are numerous south flight
path witnesses including four that CIT had interviewed. CIT claims that
these witness statements are "dubious" and this justifies not
mentioning them in the video. CIT not looking for south flight path
witnesses and excluding the ones they did find is like NIST not looking
for evidence of explosives and excluding the FEMA C report. You can't
find something if you don't look for it. A real investigative report
would give all the evidence and let the viewer decide.
Like NIST starting with the conclusion that the plane impacts and
fires brought down the Trade Towers, CIT started with the conclusion of
flyover. They included the statements that supported that conclusion and
left out any statements to the contrary. Most notably the clear,
unambiguous and unanimous statements by the five witnesses CIT
interviewed who could see the Pentagon. They all said the plane hit the
Pentagon. Four said they saw the plane fly into the building and the
fifth said he "could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon" but it
"was a direct line to go into the Pentagon [and it] collided". CIT asked
him if the plane flew over the Pentagon and he said "NO". Once again
the viewer is given only the information that supports the flyover
theory.
"1) The five witnesses that CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon.
Citgo Gas Station Witnesses
Sgt. Brooks, Sgt. Lagasse and Robert Turcios were at the Citgo gas station across Hwy.27 from the Pentagon:
At 25:30 of NSA
Ranke "Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?"
Turcios "Fly over the Pentagon???" [He was surprised anyone would ask
that question] "No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into
the Pentagon. (It) Collided."
37:56
Ranke "Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: "Correct"
At 49:40 of NSA
Ranke "Did you see the plane hit the building?"
Sgt. Lagasse "Yes". Did I see what the plane did? No, there was a big fire ball. When the plane hit it just kinda disappeared.
78:46 Ranke says: "He admitted that he did not see what the plane
actually did as it reached the building because of the fire ball." and
plays this part of what Sgt. Lagasse said: "Did I see what the plane
did? No, there was a big fire ball."
Ranke gives the viewer the impression Sgt. Lagasse did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.
Then at 78:57 he says: "Both police officers at the gas station have
agreed that we presented their accounts fairly and accurately."".
0
"1) The five witnesses that CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon.
Citgo Gas Station Witnesses
Sgt. Brooks, Sgt. Lagasse and Robert Turcios were at the Citgo gas station across Hwy.27 from the Pentagon:
At 25:30 of NSA
Ranke "Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?"
Turcios "Fly over the Pentagon???" [He was surprised anyone would ask
that question] "No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into
the Pentagon. (It) Collided."
37:56
Ranke "Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: "Correct"
At 49:40 of NSA
Ranke "Did you see the plane hit the building?"
Sgt. Lagasse "Yes". Did I see what the plane did? No, there was a big fire ball. When the plane hit it just kinda disappeared.
78:46 Ranke says: "He admitted that he did not see what the plane
actually did as it reached the building because of the fire ball." and
plays this part of what Sgt. Lagasse said: "Did I see what the plane
did? No, there was a big fire ball."
Ranke gives the viewer the impression Sgt. Lagasse did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.
Then at 78:57 he says: "Both police officers at the gas station have
agreed that we presented their accounts fairly and accurately."".
Oh poor smdio. Still looking for answers about your dead dad. Pretty sad. Listen up man. I have an actual video proof of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Never been released before video that it is. It's actually not mine, but I know the person who has it. You pay me enough, I will show it to ya. Others have paid and have seen it. It has to be watched live in his holding so no one can duplicate it or ruin it. If not, stop searching for answers and let it go. Perhaps your dad died for a reason that day.
0
Oh poor smdio. Still looking for answers about your dead dad. Pretty sad. Listen up man. I have an actual video proof of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Never been released before video that it is. It's actually not mine, but I know the person who has it. You pay me enough, I will show it to ya. Others have paid and have seen it. It has to be watched live in his holding so no one can duplicate it or ruin it. If not, stop searching for answers and let it go. Perhaps your dad died for a reason that day.
"Regarding witnesses whose testimony supports the S path, and who CIT
interviewed; Chris cites Wheelhouse, Walter, Sucherman and Narayanan,
but CIT has also interviewed Dawn Vignola, Madelyn Zakhem, Stephen
McGraw, Lloyd England and Steve Riskus, who all confirmed their original
testimony, which supports S path and AA 77 impact. For one reason or
another, same as with the 4 Chris cites, CIT dismisses these witnesses
and/or their accounts as suspect or unreliable. CIT unreasonably
dismisses S path accounts, but accepts w/o question witnesses whose
testimony supports the N path. For instance, William Lagasse has changed
elements of his story over the years, couldn't recall which side of the
Citgo he was on, told CIT he saw the plane hit (CIT says he couldn't
see it), and claimed the light poles and cab were in a location where
they weren't. CIT and their fans have dismissed these inconsistencies
and errors, and have even claimed that the fact that Lagasse believed
the light poles and the cab were somewhere where they weren't proves he
saw the plane there- and that his belief the plane hit proves he was
deluded (as if that wouldn't detract from his credibility)."
0
"Regarding witnesses whose testimony supports the S path, and who CIT
interviewed; Chris cites Wheelhouse, Walter, Sucherman and Narayanan,
but CIT has also interviewed Dawn Vignola, Madelyn Zakhem, Stephen
McGraw, Lloyd England and Steve Riskus, who all confirmed their original
testimony, which supports S path and AA 77 impact. For one reason or
another, same as with the 4 Chris cites, CIT dismisses these witnesses
and/or their accounts as suspect or unreliable. CIT unreasonably
dismisses S path accounts, but accepts w/o question witnesses whose
testimony supports the N path. For instance, William Lagasse has changed
elements of his story over the years, couldn't recall which side of the
Citgo he was on, told CIT he saw the plane hit (CIT says he couldn't
see it), and claimed the light poles and cab were in a location where
they weren't. CIT and their fans have dismissed these inconsistencies
and errors, and have even claimed that the fact that Lagasse believed
the light poles and the cab were somewhere where they weren't proves he
saw the plane there- and that his belief the plane hit proves he was
deluded (as if that wouldn't detract from his credibility)."
"1) The five witnesses that CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon.
Citgo Gas Station Witnesses
Sgt. Brooks, Sgt. Lagasse and Robert Turcios were at the Citgo gas station across Hwy.27 from the Pentagon:
At 25:30 of NSA
Ranke "Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?"
Turcios "Fly over the Pentagon???" [He was surprised anyone would ask
that question] "No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into
the Pentagon. (It) Collided."
37:56
Ranke "Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: "Correct"
At 49:40 of NSA
Ranke "Did you see the plane hit the building?"
Sgt. Lagasse "Yes". Did I see what the plane did? No, there was a big fire ball. When the plane hit it just kinda disappeared.
78:46 Ranke says: "He admitted that he did not see what the plane
actually did as it reached the building because of the fire ball." and
plays this part of what Sgt. Lagasse said: "Did I see what the plane
did? No, there was a big fire ball."
Ranke gives the viewer the impression Sgt. Lagasse did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.
Then at 78:57 he says: "Both police officers at the gas station have
agreed that we presented their accounts fairly and accurately."".
Kap, have you watched the video yet? No, you haven't. Until you do, don't try to debunk it. Watch the video, and then come here with your opinion on the witnesses, and where they saw the plane.
And CIT did not interview a single witness that saw the plane on the South Side of Columbia Pike. I'm not sure where you're getting that information. Please provide the name of the person you are quoting.
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
"1) The five witnesses that CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon said the plane hit the Pentagon.
Citgo Gas Station Witnesses
Sgt. Brooks, Sgt. Lagasse and Robert Turcios were at the Citgo gas station across Hwy.27 from the Pentagon:
At 25:30 of NSA
Ranke "Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?"
Turcios "Fly over the Pentagon???" [He was surprised anyone would ask
that question] "No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into
the Pentagon. (It) Collided."
37:56
Ranke "Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: "Correct"
At 49:40 of NSA
Ranke "Did you see the plane hit the building?"
Sgt. Lagasse "Yes". Did I see what the plane did? No, there was a big fire ball. When the plane hit it just kinda disappeared.
78:46 Ranke says: "He admitted that he did not see what the plane
actually did as it reached the building because of the fire ball." and
plays this part of what Sgt. Lagasse said: "Did I see what the plane
did? No, there was a big fire ball."
Ranke gives the viewer the impression Sgt. Lagasse did not see the plane hit the Pentagon.
Then at 78:57 he says: "Both police officers at the gas station have
agreed that we presented their accounts fairly and accurately."".
Kap, have you watched the video yet? No, you haven't. Until you do, don't try to debunk it. Watch the video, and then come here with your opinion on the witnesses, and where they saw the plane.
And CIT did not interview a single witness that saw the plane on the South Side of Columbia Pike. I'm not sure where you're getting that information. Please provide the name of the person you are quoting.
Sorry, I didn't see post #1451 before submitting the last post.
Now that I know who you are talking about, I can address your claims for specifically, and offer you reason as to why CIT choose not to include the interviews of Dawn Vignola, Madelyn Zakhem, Stephen McGraw, Lloyd England and Steve Riskus.
This will take a while. Please allow me some time to properly prepare a formal response.
Thanks for this. Finally, someone is thinking
P.S. WATCH THE VIDEO KAP.
0
Sorry, I didn't see post #1451 before submitting the last post.
Now that I know who you are talking about, I can address your claims for specifically, and offer you reason as to why CIT choose not to include the interviews of Dawn Vignola, Madelyn Zakhem, Stephen McGraw, Lloyd England and Steve Riskus.
This will take a while. Please allow me some time to properly prepare a formal response.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
